Brief Facts
- CBI registered an FIR following a complaint alleging a criminal conspiracy by Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL) and others, including the respondents, to defraud a consortium of 17 banks of approximately Rs. 34,000 crores between 2010 and 2019.
- The respondents were arrested on 19.07.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 30.07.2022. On 15.10.2022, a chargesheet was filed, but the respondents filed a statutory bail application on 29.10.2022, arguing that the chargesheet was incomplete and no final report had been filed within the statutory period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
- The court granted default bail to the respondents, citing an incomplete investigation and a piecemeal chargesheet. The CBI challenged this order before the High Court, but the High Court, on 30.05.2023, dismissed the CBI’s petition. The CBI filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court of Delhi.
Issues
- Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 167 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 (Chargesheet) against respondents along with the other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit and though the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court and the Trial Court through which the accused Respondents were released on default bail.
Report is complete is statutory requirement of section173 of CrPC are fulfilled
- In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5). As settled in the afore-stated case, it is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.
Mere pendency of investigation under section 173(8) cannot be a ground to seek default bail, if charge sheet qua the Applicant is otherwise filed.
- The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.”
- In view of the afore-stated legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that the chargesheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending.
Relevant Paras
- 22, 23, 25 and 26